If they are related and are artificial happenings I would wonder what exactly would be producing them? What could possibly do such a thing? A more
powerful radar matching the signal sent out and inundating the receiver end with false signals bouncing back from all directions, from space
perhaps?

I think that stealth is not a capability for Russia or China yet. Not to the degree of the US.They wouldn't have a response to US stealth tech and
that wouldn't just stay as is in their minds. They would be searching like crazy to either nullify our advantage or at least replicate it. The next
best thing is hiding ALL aircraft in the air, stealth or not.

SO what do you guys think?

Any radar operators, former or otherwise that can comment and shed some light on this?

Could a fake signal be sent back to imitate a radar signal bouncing back off an aircraft but in all directions, in essence blacking out the radar?

What if someone wanted to make it look like a Ballistic missile was headed for .say DC . If it's possible to simulate such false scenarios ,how could
or would either side respond ? scary stuff a reply to: MystikMushroom

Didn't the Vulcan bomber have a system that could make it look like there were either more than one aircraft, or the aircraft was in a different place
on Radar? Seem to remember this being mentioned when they were interviewing the crew that took part in the raid during the Falklands war in a small
documentary they did?

Radar blackout is not what Electronic warfare (EW) systems do...
Radar is just a radio wave sent out, then reflected off a target right...

EW cannot hide or absorb a radio wave instead it floods the air with stronger radio waves so that a radar sees nothing but a white screen....

where as radar black out is not getting a return on your signal...
diff critter altogether... Stranger too in that we no of nothing that can just suck up radio waves--- other than a singularity. (Black Hole)

I'm no expert but---
Stealth planes have this ceramic coating on their skins that can absorb some radio waves...not all but combined with aircraft profiles reflecting that
radar signal away from... the radar see's them as being a tiny object like a bird...

BTW on the flip side they made this slab sided drone designed to make itself look like a big aircraft to radar.

There special built that way... an airbus however looks like a fright train on radar.

and I too have read about using magnets to make a radar signal more around an object... but those systems are limited to a single craft/target and
physically have to be up there to do their thing.

A real wide spread radar black out is a huge mystery because it's not suppose to be possible... not saying someone hasn't done it--- just saying it
breaks a lot of laws of physics if they have...

Stealth only means you get detected much closer to the radar than non-stealth. You still need some kind of EW system. And the last thing you want
while flying a stealth is some "blot out the world" jamming system.

Brute force jammers can be triangulated to some degree. Using that system with a stealth would be like lighting a neon sign overhead saying "Here I
am!"

ATC radar, with the exception of TCA radar is almost all secondary radar. That means there is no signal to block. There is no radar return, like with
a primary radar. It's all done through radio signals and transponders.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
What if someone wanted to make it look like a Ballistic missile was headed for .say DC . If it's possible to simulate such false scenarios ,how could
or would either side respond ? scary stuff a reply to: MystikMushroom

That's much more difficult. A ICBM attack would be tracked from numerous very remote Arctic radar stations. Somebody would have to be flying a
number of aircraft within relatively short range of those radars.

And strategically, what's the point? Just to piss somebody off?

The radar outage (not sure if it was primary returns or transponders) I bet was just a SNAFU (look it up) from some airman in an ECM exercise.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.